TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the demand rejecting the petitioner's objections. This was in breach of principles of natural justice. When the petitioner had no idea on what grounds the authorities primafacie thought that the standard formula of granting stay on depositing 15% of the disputed tax demand would not be appropriate, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to put such reasons to the petitioner enabling the petitioner to meet with such grounds and oppose higher collection by raising suitable defense. In the result, impugned order dated 30.06.2017 is set aside. The Principal Commissioner shall pass a fresh order after first providing the reasons which had weighed with the Assessing Officer in proposing and the Principal Commissioner in approving collection of 50% of the demand pending appeal to the petitioner, giving him reasonable time to respond. - Special Civil Application No. 14507 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Petitioner : MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH, ADVOCATE For The Respondent : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner therefore proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the written submissions made by the assessee. It is this order the petitioner has challenged in the present petition. 6. In order to streamline the process of granting stay and to standardize the quantum of lumpsum payment required to be made by the assessee as a precondition for stay of demand disputed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the CBDT in its circular dated 29.02.2016 has issued certain guidelines. Relevant portion of this circular reads as under: 3. It has been reported that the field authorities often insist on payment of a very high proportion of the disputed demand before granting stay of the balance demand. This often results in hardship for the taxpayers seeking stay of demand. 4. In order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a precondition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A), the following modified guidelines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No.1914: ( A) In a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT (A), the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 months) or if the assessee has not cooperated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations: ( iii) reserve the right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of the amount required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of section 245. 7. Perusal of the circular would show that conscious of the fact that the insistence of the field authorities on payment of a very high proportion of a disputed demand before granting stay of the balance amount often resulted in hardship of the taxpayers seeking stay of the demand, the CBDT was prompted to issue the said circular. The purpose of issuing the guidelines was to streamline the process of granting the stay and to standardize the quantum of lumpsum payment for adjourning stay of the remaining amount pending appeal before the appellate Commissioner. Two main purposes for issuance of circular therefore were to obviate the hardship of the tax payers and to standardize the quantum of lumpsum payment is required to be made. 8. In this background, if we peruse the guidelines, clause (A) of para 4 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercentage of predeposit over 15% are not meant to be exhaustive. The instances cited in the said subclause are merely by way of providing examples. However, the fair reading of the circular which aims to bring in a certain standardization in the process of collecting disputed tax pending appeal, would persuade us that the increase of 15% outside of the examples cited in subclause (A) should be in special or exceptional cases after recording reasons. 11. Insofar as the present order is concerned, there are two fundamental flows due to which the same may be set aside. First is that the Principal Commissioner cited the nonappearance of the petitioner during personal hearings as the main ground for rejecting the request for reduction of predeposit. Though he did refer to the petitioner's written submissions, the grounds raised in the written submissions were not met with. The main reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner was that he could not demonstrate any financial hardship. Financial hardship need not be the sole ground on which increase in predeposit of 15% can be opposed. Further, if the petitioner was not interested in personal hearing, his written submissions c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
